site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   44948 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

105
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just in: Chileans reject new progressive Constitution. An interesting chapter in the history of Latin American economic and political development. (The country's progress over the last few decades makes it one of the region's real success stories.) For my part, I suspect the voters made a smart call here, but are there Motters closer to the issue with actual insights? What will come next?

From what I can tell it is so undeniably woke in that it effectively sets up a reverse caste system, enshrined into the law.

And since South America lacks the advanced institutions of the cathedral to implement this outside of the viewpoint of the majority, the Chileans have to write it into constitutional law - and exposed to the light of democracy, it withers and dies like a vampire.

And since South America lacks the advanced institutions of the cathedral to implement this outside of the viewpoint of the majority

The viewpoint of the majority is the reason a new constitution is being tried in the first place given that they voted to drop the old one in 2020. Without knowing more details it's hard to say whether it failed because the people don't like it at all or just because they don't like some parts of it.

There was an article in the constitution that had a provision for a separate system (justice, medical, schooling) for the Mapuche people - which, at best, would be Jim Crow. At worst, it would be the effective division of the country on ethnic grounds.

And that's not even the worst of it, really. The whole thing reads like a wish list of the globalist progressive left, and what's even worse is that it's 178 pages long with 378 articles. Such a byzantine constitution would be contested at every turn, and give way too much pressure on the weak legal institutions to adjudicate well... everything. The Economist does a pretty [good] (https://archive.ph/wbzDZ) write up on it.

There was an article in the constitution that had a provision for a separate system (justice, medical, schooling) for the Mapuche people - which, at best, would be Jim Crow. At worst, it would be the effective division of the country on ethnic grounds.

How different is it to tribal sovereignty in the United States?

She is probably talking about a few things:

First of all there seems to be an initiative for gender parity among various governing institutions.

Women made up one-half of the assembly that created the proposed constitution—a world record—and the charter stipulates that all public institutions have gender parity. In a first for Chile, it also lays the grounds for a national public healthcare system and makes the government responsible for adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change. (Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/08/chile-new-constitution-rewrite-boric-protests-pinochet-dictatorship-referendum/ )

Second, there seems to be a a provision that gives the Chilean indigenous something like U.S. style reservations where they have their own semi-sovereign land.

On Sunday, Chileans will vote on a new constitution that, if approved, would enshrine some of the most extensive rights for Indigenous people anywhere in the world, according to experts. If the text is approved, more than two million Indigenous Chileans, 80 percent of whom are Mapuche, would be able to govern their own territories, have their own courts and be recognized as distinct nations within Chile, a nation of 19 million people. ( Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/world/americas/chile-constitution-vote-indigenous.html )

Continued on in the NYT article:

The convention that was elected last year to write Chile’s new constitution was heralded as one of the most inclusive political bodies anywhere. It had gender parity and 17 of its 155 seats were reserved for Indigenous representatives. Its first president was Elisa Loncón, a Mapuche linguist who wore traditional dress to the plenary sessions and often greeted other convention members in Mapudungun, the Mapuche language.

The Indigenous representatives left their mark on the draft text. The first article of the new constitution would declare Chile a “plurinational” state, meaning that multiple nations would be recognized within Chile’s borders.

It would enshrine quotas for Indigenous people in all elected bodies, including at the national, regional and municipal levels. Indigenous people would have their own autonomous territories and gain protection over their lands and the natural resources on them. Most controversially, a parallel Indigenous justice system would rule in cases that do not affect fundamental rights or international treaties signed by Chile.

I don't quite see why the above poster is calling this a reverse caste system. It seems like straightforward affirmative action and some tribal sovereignty to be honest.

It is my position that those policies create a caste system in the more affluent West as well - nakedly open racial preference in service of social justice is just as abhorrent as it is in the service of the majority, like in Malaysia. Either way, you're creating distorted incentives that are rife for corruption and nepotism.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/whats-chiles-proposed-new-constitution-2022-07-29/

  • State bodies and public companies, among other entities, must have gender parity.

  • The state must take measures to eradicate and punish gender violence.

  • The proposal says every person is entitled to sexual and reproductive rights, including the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, but leaves specifics regarding abortion up to future laws. Abortion in Chile is currently legal only in cases that involve rape, unviable pregnancies or when the mother's life is in danger.

  • The state must "respect, promote, protect and guarantee" self-determination, collective and individual rights, and participation of indigenous groups.

  • The text guarantees "the right of indigenous peoples and nations to their lands, territories and resources", reserves seats in representative bodies and establishes that groups must be consulted in matters that affect their rights.

  • The new constitution would establish parallel justice systems for indigenous groups, but the country's supreme court will still have the final say.

  • 17 seats reserved for members of Chile’s two million strong Indigenous population

  • enforces Indigenous representation at all levels of government, as well as gender parity in government and in both public and public-private enterprises

  • parallel justice system for indigenous groups

https://www.vox.com/2022/9/4/23336809/chile-new-constitution-boric

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats